HIGHNOON for Pachauri

UPDATE: links to new information posted at the bottom of this article, including a new story from the Times

UPDATE2: Jonathan Leake’s story at the Time is Online, linking Pauchari’s TERI organization to government funding grants that were solicited using the bogus “Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035″ claim.

Christopher Booker of the Telegraph has a story that shows Pachauri’s own employee at TERI was the source of the bogus glacier claim. Now the corruption comes full circle.

UPDATE3: Pachauri now bizarrely claims in a press interview that the IPCC’s credibility has been strengthened.

IMHO, Dr. Pachauri is toast. He has nowhere to go except out.

See links at end of this story

We’ve covered some of the travails of IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajenda Pachauri here at WUWT in the past couple of weeks. Besides the facts mentioned above,  the National Hurricane Center chief scientist Christopher Landsea resigned in 2007  from the IPCC over what he cited as lack of confidence in the science.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

Most notable recently was the bogus claim In the IPCC AR4 that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 that appeared to be based on nothing more than a journalist’s opinion piece, contrary to IPCC rules that reports be based on peer reviewed science. The Times of India has just run their first political cartoon on the subject.

Political satire from the Times of India - click for source

That in itself was a bombshell, since the IPCC had to withdraw the claim. Other errors in the report have been found also and it is looking like the IPCC didn’t do any checking of this section of their report, bringing the entire report into question.

There’s also been quite a bit of first class investigative work done by Christopher Booker of the Telegraph and Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum about Dr. Pachauri’s connections to TERI (The Energy Research Institute) and his IPCC position. As I pointed out about his email usage, it seems he has a difficult time delineating the two to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

Now it appears that conflict of interest charges are about to go to a higher level.

The “IPCC 2035 glacier error” has been used to solicit funds for new projects, and guess where the money goes?

This PDF File is from the EU’s HighNoon website, and shows how the EU set up a project to research the ‘rapid retreat’ of glaciers in the Himalayas based on the bogus IPCC report. Some of the EU taxpayers’ money put into this project has gone to TERI, which is run by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.

See slide number 5 for the IPCC citation.

It appears that  is using this single “…disappearing by the year 2035″ statement as justification for an entire research project, funded by the EU, which is funded by taxpayers.

As we see in slide 7, they got a nice tidy 10 million Euros ($14.13 millon USD) to study a false statement based on nothing more than a passing opinion.

I have word through a backchannel that Jonathan Leake of the London Times is about to make known financial linkages to this and several more TERI/IPCC projects funded by taxpayer dollars.

Here’s his Times report from last week.

I’ll make his newest report available here as soon as it appears.

[Update, additional links from Jonathan Leake  below ~ ctm]

RELATED:
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor

BREAKING NEWS:

Leake: UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers
Taxpayers funding research under Pachauri’s TERI organization

Booker: Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal :
Dr Pachauri has rapidly distanced himself from the IPCC’s baseless claim about vanishing glaciers. But the scientist who made the claim now works for Pachauri, writes Christopher Booker

Bizarre claim: ‘IPCC’s credibility has increased': Pachauri

“Facing a barrage of questions from the media about his `loss of credibility’, Pachauri maintained that all “rational people” would continue to repose their faith in IPCC and its findings.” – yeah right.


Sponsored IT training links:
Take advantage of latest 70-662 questions and answers written by our 646-364 certified team to help you pass 70-291 exam in first try.


About these ads

181 thoughts on “HIGHNOON for Pachauri

  1. Thanks for keeping the spotlight focused on the unfolding AGW scandal (anthropological global warming).

    The roots of this scandal follow the same flow of public funds that corrupted our most prestigious research journals and research institutions.

    Follow the money!

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  2. I highly recommend watching this program. Since Climategate broke, my interest in this topic has dramatically peaked. I learned so much more than I knew before.
    Even proponents can learn a lot from this. Climate science is not impossible to understand. The difficult part is making accurate predictions, obviously. I have always been skeptical of doomsday predictions, and CAGW falls squarely into this category.
    When you realize how sloppily the raw data is obtained, it’s virtually impossible to even agree that warming has occurred. Sigh!

  3. AGW global warming and climate change is alive and thriving in the UK. The heroic CRU scientists receive sypathetic reassuring messages from all and sundry. They gamely soldier on in their work despite being badgered by ill advised sceptics, who have nothing better to do, siting the FOI Act. No doubt the Court of Human Rights in Brussels will eventually come to their aid. Dr Pechauri should come and live here, (that’s if he doesn’t already), and he will not receive any press coverage at all, hostile or otherwise.

  4. From Wiki, the Gangotri Glacier (about one of India’s biggest) is about 30,200 meters long and it’s losing about 25 meters per year versus and an average of about 19 meters per year since 1780. So, it’ll disappear by Year 3200 or so.

    Can’t wait to see that.

  5. Usually when a massive enterprise like AGW starts to go down, the politicians who are going to get caught up in it realize they need to find some scapegoats to pin the blame on. Pachouri looks tailormade for the part.

    What’s amazing is that I don’t think Gordon Browne is intelligent enough to realize yet that this is all going down and that he and his party are going down with it if he doesn’t do something.

    Cameron has also been drinking the AGW koolaid; but since he doesn’t have any direct responsibility so far this is a great opportunity for him to jump off the bandwagon, if he will make use of it. “I was honest but misled by these evildoers!” is a line that has worked time and again. No need for *everyone* to go down with the ship; good politicians are supposed to know that instinctively.

  6. This “mistake” reminds me of the “mistakes” I sometimes find on restaurant bills. If it’s a mistake, then why is it that 90% of the time it goes in favor of the restaurant?

  7. I heard a radio report last week that Pachauri had threatened legal action against a British news organization. Was this the article that triggered that response?

  8. As a foreign national living in Rome (EU) I have seen what a joke this body is. Now we get this quote: “After CAREFUL CONSIDERATION…” They give this careful consideration to many of their decisions. They will ruin the entire Union economically as they push their agenda forward. Let’s hope that the rest of the world sees the ruination of the EU and doesn’t follow suit.

  9. Not only did they get the rates wrong, but their absolute areas were completely off the mark. Blinding incompetence indicating that there was no actual research ever done.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

    It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

  10. One of the supermarkets here in the Chicago area has little TV monitors set up so that the folks in the check-out lines can be entertained (and watch advertisements) while they wait. Along the bottom of the screen is a little news-scroll, like you see on Fox News or CNN (or, presumably, other news channels).

    To my surprise, the scroll said something like (I missed the 1st couple of words) ” . . . report on glaciers is riddled with errors”! It’s quite a sea-change to see something like this get play through this kind of outlet. Amazing

  11. This glacier melt thing is nonsense regarding drinking water. We have no glaciers in the eastern US and only a small amount even in the West. Our rivers and streams flow year round. Drinking water comes from precipitation, it doesn’t matter whether it falls as snow or rain or whether it freezes for 1,000 years before it ends up in a river for human use. AGW theory proposes that there will be increased precipitation, thereby increased monsoons in the Himalayas, even if temperature rise a drastic 10F, there would be plenty of drinking water, as long as precipitation continues. Duh, and they model more precipitation, not less.

    That Chris Landsea link does not work anymore. It used to be here. My simple use of google cache did not pull it up. Very revealing, probably too revealing.

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

    Here is the Malaria guy also resigning.

    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-01/paul.htm

    Another beauty. The geolgoists conference “deniers”.

    Sea Level Denier. The Greatest Lie Ever Told

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

    Important Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson denier!

    http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

  12. Give Pachauri some horns and a pitchfork and he fits right in… in that afterlife place where it’s VERY WARM. He looks like a “dead ringer” for the proprietor that runs the place, and I hear the owner there likes it REALLY HOT. That could be considered Man-made Warming too, so he’d be right at home there…

  13. Here is my statement – –
    “The sky is falling !!!”

    EU Environment ministers may deposit research funds into the following account:
    Routing Number – 429578297
    Account Number 0208-9927-4275

  14. Cashcow Cassandra and Paycheck Pachauri heading for a fall I think.

    Hasnain, who came up with the 2035 BS(Bad Science) is Employed by TERI (Formerly TATA Energy Research Institute)

    This will not stand.

  15. Of course , the US media has completely ignored “glaciergate” , except for a passing mention on Fox . How far in the tank do you have to be to not bother with what could become a major international scancal ? The US media cetainly took to the oil for food thingy .
    ( Mods – I think “[roject” should read project . )

    [Thanks, fixed. ~dbs]

  16. How many warrants are outstanding on our pal Maurice Strong?
    I wonder if our good friend George Soros has his pinkies somewhere near the cookie jar?

  17. Climate Change – The Musical

    Starring Rajenda Pachauri

    Fresh from his successful New York show Rajenda Pachauri sings his favorite song:

    In this life, one thing counts
    In the bank, large amounts
    I’m afraid these don’t grow on trees,
    You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two

    You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys,
    You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two.

  18. I was watching a report on CNN international on this subject a couple of days ago and was surprised to hear how the language they use has changed, its as if sceptics are acceptable members of society all of a sudden, dare i say it with all that has happened could it be that sceptics are in fashion? That means its time to reexamine the evidence.

  19. Transparency is a good thing. From what I hear, the IPCC has nothing in their charter to guard against conflicts of interest. “Follow the money” still works to reveal motivation.

  20. O/T Daily Telegraph quotes Phil. Willis, Chairman of Commons science and technology committee investigating CRU emails. He uses the term “climate change deniers”. Not encouraging, and I suspect Pachauri will be protected as well. It’s all too embarrassing for politicos of every party.

  21. I can’t believe the mainstream media is still vouching for Pachauri and the IPCC after everything that’s happened. It’s scandalous. The Nobel committee should also be investigated for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to an agenda-driven organization that is riddled with conflict of interest problems. The IPCC is looking more and more like a criminal organization and the prestige of the Nobel is bound to suffer as a result.

  22. Why is the European Union funding research in to the retreat of Himalayan glaciers, irrespective of the providence of the evidence?

  23. It appears that the is using this single “…disappearing by the year 2035″ statement as justification for an entire research [roject, funded by the EU, which is funded by taxpayers.

    Couple of typos in this sentence [ = p and “that the is”

    [Thanks, fixed. ~dbs]

  24. The last sentence of the paragraph under the cartoon should read “bringing the entire report into question.”

    [Thanks, fixed. ~dbs]

  25. Yikes – another typo – you hit a [ instead of a ”p” in the word “project” right under the glacier slide.

    [Thanks, fixed. ~dbs]

  26. I am sure that the money given by the EU has already been returned – oops – it hasnt’ been?

  27. @ Frugal Dougal – They initially sent the copy out to the printer as “High Loon”, but the printer made a mistake and by that time it was too late.

  28. Christoperher Booker has a very detailed article on this in today’s Sunday Telegraph –

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html

    Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal

    Dr Pachauri has rapidly distanced himself from the IPCC’s baseless claim about vanishing glaciers. But the scientist who made the claim now works for Pachauri, writes Christopher Booker.

    I can report a further dramatic twist to what has inevitably been dubbed “Glaciergate” – the international row surrounding the revelation that the latest report on global warming by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained a wildly alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a “poor application” of IPCC procedures.

    What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America’s leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.

  29. Sorry that this is OT and belongs to an earlier post about the proposed Parliamentary enquiry into Climategate. If I post this comment there, it will be consigned to history and I believe that this is too important. There was a general feeling of relief and optimism expressed on this blog concerning the original post. That was maybe premature. The Daily Telegraph (Saturday 23 January) reported on the news. After mentioning the current UEA enquiry, they went on as follows:

    Phil Willis, Chairman of the Commons Science and Technology Committee said:

    “There are a significant number of climate deniers, who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science. We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so that the public can see what they are saying.”

    The comment by Mr Willis makes me incandescent with rage, but maybe I am reading it wrongly. I shall say no more about the interpretation at this juncture and would welcome your views.

    If you read it as I do, we must act very quickly. Please give credible and realistic suggestions. I shall not let the matter rest, but first, I need some feedback to get a more balanced view.

  30. Slide #5:”After careful consideration …” made me spit my beer all over the floor.
    So they carefully considered the 2035 bullxxxx, umh … bogus, and found it correct, asking for urgent action. Hahaha.
    It’s so bad, you can’t make it up.

    Maybe this is a good point in time to remind people who have asked for excluding politics off scientific boards to think again.

  31. Now that I’ve complained about “glaciergate” not seeing the light of day in the US , it shows up on my AOL homepage . Go figure .

  32. How very fortunate it is that, with modern electronic banking, it is impossible to eradicate all traces of the money trail. A good forensic accountant could have a field-day with Dr. Pachauri’s financial wheelings and dealings.
    Although such a task would appear to rival the cleansing of the Augean stables in magnitude, I’m sure that the latter day equivalents of the Alpheus and Peneus could be found. The rewards would certainly exceed anything promised to Heracles!

  33. As the Holocene Interglacial Epoch fades first to a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum, then to a sixty- to 1,500-year overdue reversion to Pleistocene Ice Time, the IPCC and others’ deceitful propaganda will be refuted root-and-branch. But meantime, an immensely destructive effect of these overweening, peculating Green Gangs has already been the decades-long sabotage of global energy economies. Naked partisan obstruction of ongoing projects combined with feckless promotion of over-hyped “alternative sources” on spurious pretexts for no valid climatological reasons whatsoever, ensure that major long-term glacial cooling –averaging 102,000 years from the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary 1.8-million years ago– will have catastrophic demographic impacts when it inevitably comes.

  34. Shortly after climategate first broke, we have the following quote from Dr. Pachauri, allaying our fears of any chicanery at the renknowed I.P.C.C. (Courtesy of a Guardian. U.K. article by J. Randerson of Nov.29,2009) It is interesting and I think, informative, to revisit a few ofthose quotes now with (no longer) disappearing Himalayan glaciers in mind.

    1. “There is ‘virtually no possibilty’ of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the U.N.’s top global warming body, its chair said today.”

    2. “People who are aware of how the IPCC functions and are appreciative of the credibility that the IPCC has attained will probably not be swayed by an incident of this kind.”

    With respect to item 1., apparently just such a possibility does indeed exist.

    Witht respect to item 2., what about another incident, what about yet more incidents to come? Things over at the IPCC aren’t looking too prestigious anymore.

    I spent a number of years in management consulting in an engineering/technical/operations environment. We only had two rules. First, always submit the invoice on time; secondly, never belive your own B.S. The good Dr. has certainly got the first rule downpat, but appears to have overlooked the second, to his own imminent peril.

  35. John Moss (13:39:14) :

    Why is the European Union funding research in to the retreat of Himalayan glaciers, irrespective of the providence of the evidence?

    It’s obvious that the entire global warming industry are in bed together and have somehow infiltrated every government agency on both sides of the Atlantic. The ones with the purse strings are the same ones on the receiving end. Follow the money, as they say.

  36. Schrodinger’s Cat

    Maybe somebody should write to whoever it is who runs Select Committees and complain that Willis is biased before the enquiry begins. What we really need to know is, of the writers of Word documents (no later version than 2003) submitted as evidence, who chooses which writers to call in to give evidence to the enquiry?

  37. “John Moss (13:39:14) :

    Why is the European Union funding research in to the retreat of Himalayan glaciers, irrespective of the providence of the evidence?”

    Maybe the money can be deducted from the development aid commitments.

  38. Policyguy (12:35:22) :

    “I heard a radio report last week that Pachauri had threatened legal action”

    That day shall ne’er be seen,Policyguy. Not if Pachauri doesn’t want to be put to the test about his ‘not taking a penny’ for himself. Any legal action by him will result in a flood of Discovery requests which will lay bare his income from all these sources. I can’t see him opening himself up to that – he has had plenty of chances so far and hasn’t taken them up.

  39. Leake is going to say something skeptical???
    I can’t wait.
    Regardless of the weather he always manages to slide a warmist comment into his articles somewhere.

    Schrodingers Cat (13.56.54)
    I don’t hold out much hope for a parliamentary inquiry chaired by Willis. It might help if all the Brits on here emailed him and pointed out that:
    a) what he thinks about the subject is irrelevant; he’s supposed to be chairing an objective inquiry not a whitewash;
    b) climate science is poor science as the leaked files are proving;
    c) it is extremely healthy for those who are skeptical of the science to say so;
    d) he does himself no favours by using emotive words like “denier” to describe those who quite legitimately take a different view.

  40. Seems our krudd idiot here in Australia handed over 1 million to pachauri to help with this research, I just hope someone can sort out the facts and follow his money trail.
    Let’s hope some charges can be laid.

  41. Schrodinger’s Cat (13:56:54) – Unfortunately , I see no good faith in Willis’s statement .
    dbs – Thanks for not pointing out my own typo above .

  42. Pachauri made the mistake of denigrating the Indian Govt in relation to the Copenhagen fiasco. They’re after him and I doubt he will survive. It’s just a question of how well he will extracate himself out of this. Maybe along the lines ….”I have far too many commitments to be able to continue as chairman of IPCC yada yada yada, the 5th assessment report is on the horizon and deserves a chairman who can devote more time yada yada yada”

  43. @Gary Else (13:09:24) :

    Climate Change – The Musical –

    my suggestions would be:

    Took all of the ‘warmingistas’ pieces – compress it to about 11 Minutes,
    take as background music from ‘The Doors’, title ‘This is the End’…
    … take some first arguments against AGW,
    background music from Joan Baez , ‘Silent Running’,
    — Okay, okay, she has a green agenda. Still, the music is OK to me.
    On the two faces:
    AGW and natural longterm weather cycles, how about the song of
    Grace Slick, Jefferson Airplane, LP ‘After Bathing at Baxters’, 1967,
    the song ‘Two Heads’ as background music.

    When the hard stuff cometh over the ‘warmingistas’, something classic,
    Mussorgsky, Rimmsky-Korsakov or Stravinsky. To me something from
    Stravinsky would fit nicely. (Firebird)

    Because music rarely lies, so they never tried it with the appopriate sound
    attached. Additionally, music does activate some parts of the brain,
    which are less prone to ‘bad suggestions’.

    more

  44. Steve in SC (13:07:59) :

    How many warrants are outstanding on our pal Maurice Strong?
    I wonder if our good friend George Soros has his pinkies somewhere near the cookie jar?

    Soros out of the kindness of his heart invested in Copenhagen. He even asked them to spot him 100 Billion dollar$$ to manage a disbursement fund for carbon indulgences.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B91N520091210

    Soros is sleazy and where there is corruption, he is nearby.
    He is a large backer of climateprogress.

  45. Thanks, Anthony, for the dogged persistence about this science fraud and all its malevolent, greedy actors. I would like to see a list of those most in the lead, with their financial dealings and interconnections displayed. This list could include the amount of taxpayer dollars they have squandered as well as the amount of “charity” they have received for non-profit purposes under false pretenses. This is called ACCOUNTABILITY to the taxpayers and the generous givers. It would be great if we could begin to check these individuals off, one by one, including the amounts they have returned, the amounts they owe (for the rest of their lives), the investigations in place, the law suits filed against them and the outcome of both.

    Next on the list, what “prestigious” positions must they resign. I can imagine that quite a number of new professorships could open up at most — it does seem to be most — of our prestigious universities and “think tanks”. Furthermore, they should receive no retirement or pension for all those years of false and bad-faith service. This is a terribly impotant matter because of what it has already cost the developed world and because of the plans afoot to defraud us of billions more. There should be no mercy. Whichever pseudo-scientists took part in any of this (almost everyone involved in the IPCC reports), off with their metaphorical heads.

    The institutions involved can save a bunch of dough, too, either by no new hiring or by hiring junior scientists with recommendatiosn from “real” scientists in the appropriate field (no “activitists” — whatever this means — may apply) along with assurances that they will obey the fundamental rule of TRANSPARENCY.

    Finally, as part of the information on each individual involved in this scam — how much jail time must they serve? How much in fines for purposeful evil-doing must they pay? In addition to Accountability and Transparency, PUNISHMENT for transgressions is essential to help keep people honest. If we are going to have science, as well as representative democracy, we must create the conditions for honesty and trust.

    These people are deeply entrenched and this project will take time, effort, and dogged pursuit. It will be well worth it, especially for our children and grandchildren and all those new scientists to be trained in the future.

  46. From the article at

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

    “Meanwhile the Government gives the go-ahead for three new 1,000 megawatt gas-fired power stations in Wales. Each of them will generate more than the combined average output (700 megawatts) of all the 2,400 wind turbines so far built. The days of the “great wind fantasy” will soon be over. ”

    As i repeatedly pointed out, this is NECESSARY when you install large scale wind power: Establish a running reserve to buffer the spikes in wind power output – and not for the average performance but for the peak performance which is 5 times higher than the average.

    Probably the german companies who won the tenders for Gordon’s windmills have pointed all this out long ago, and the new 3 GW gas plants are laid out to have fast reaction times.

  47. FYI, the rest of the Select Committee are a bit of a mixed bag in their history of votes on warming issues. And if we wanted to complain about Willis’s bias, my bet is that the person to direct your letters to would be Lord Drayson, Minister for Science and Innovation, c/o the House of Lords. I’m sure we can reach him by e-mail.

  48. No free wind

    “This glacier melt thing is nonsense regarding drinking water. We have no glaciers in the eastern US and only a small amount even in the West.”

    Living in Western Washington State…if our Glaciers were to disappear a big chunk of our drinking water would as well. I accept in many areas of the world people depend on rain water runoff and man made reservoirs for drinking water, or deep wells.

    Out here we depend on Snow melt.
    The Columbia River is mostly snow melt as well, we depend on that for electricity.

    No Glaciers = ”No Snow to melt in the summer”.

  49. rbateman (14:34:51) :

    Green Energy – a new brand of perpetual motion greased with subsidies.
    —-
    [/sarcon]
    More to that, Green vs. Energy,
    thats like Hell vs. Heaven,
    and in the biblical sense,
    everybody has to take his bid.
    [/sarcoff]
    By the way I was green – and not only behind my ears – but that was 35 years ago.

  50. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583711,00.html?test=latestnews

    “The head of a panel of United Nations climate scientists said Saturday he would not resign despite a recent admission that a panel report warning Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035 was hundreds of years off.

    The claim, made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s voluminous, Nobel-winning report, came in a paragraph with several errors. Data indicates the ice could melt by 2350. The assertion went virtually unnoticed until The Sunday Times said the projection seemed to be based on a news report.

    The scientists are investigating how the forecast got into the report and apologized Thursday for the mistakes, adding that they were not intentional. But the errors have opened the door for attacks from climate change skeptics.”

    Intentional… or maybe just intentionally convenient. Who made the news report that got into the IPCC report? Who in the IPCC picked it up? Who switcherooed the numbers from 2350 to 2035?
    The errors…oh my the errors….
    Must sterilize imperfection …. Goremad.

  51. Egads, why does “Slide 5″ have a photo of a grisly dissection? You can clearly see the bones, with unwrapping bundles of muscles and fibers most noticeable at top center. I have a fresh pork roast to attend to!

    (Before replying to this comment, consider the implications of “subliminal messages,” choices of colors, and ways to elicit an immediate “something is horrifyingly wrong” response when proposing drastic action to remedy an “unthinkable” crisis.)

  52. This blog about the 2035 error seems to give some more detail than I have seen elsewhere :

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16689.html

    Most interesting is the following paragraph :

    ‘Georg Kaser, an expert in glaciology with University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, gave a damning different assessment of the implications of the latest scandal affecting the credibility of the IPCC. Kaser says he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the IPCC report was published. “This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude. All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made. If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said ‘we will do better next time’. It is clear now that working group II has to be restructured.”‘

    So it gets worse : the IPCC were warned of the error BEFORE IT WAS PUBLISHED.

    IT APPEARS THEY DID NOT BOTHER TO CHECK AND CORRECT IT AS IT WAS THE SCARIEST MONSTER IN THEIR CLOSET!

    This suggests that it was included as pure propaganda with no scientific basis, AND THEY KNEW IT!

  53. I wonder long before we see Pachauri in a court of law fighting charges of corruption and stealing of public funded monies?

  54. Talk of politicians going quiet. Narry a peep out of Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on global warming and carbon taxes. He was a fanatic advocate of global warming and climate taxes.

  55. Mapou (13:32:56) :

    I can’t believe the mainstream media is still vouching for Pachauri and the IPCC after everything that’s happened. It’s scandalous. The Nobel committee should also be investigated for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to an agenda-driven organization that is riddled with conflict of interest problems. The IPCC is looking more and more like a criminal organization and the prestige of the Nobel is bound to suffer as a result.
    ——————————————————–

    Mapou, that’s a common misconception. The Nobel committee awards scientific prizes (the real ones). The so-called Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of politicians chosen by the Norwegian parliament.

  56. Consider that Pachauri replaced Watson, and the Warmists were howling because Pachauri counted as less alarmist than Watson. Dang, we missed out on some REALLY exaggerated claims there.


  57. The “IPCC 2035 glacier error” has been used to solicit funds for new projects, and guess where the money goes?

    This PDF File is from the EU’s HighNoon website, and shows how the EU set up a project to research the ‘rapid retreat’ of glaciers in the Himalayas based on the bogus

    Waoww…
    This is a rather devastating find, because of this mitigating statement :-

    ” The 2035 claim was not mentioned in the IPCC’s “summary for policymakers” so was not presented as one of its central arguments.”

    The implication clearly being that policy wouldn’t have been based it.

    So how would the EC still manage to rely on it, for spending our money ?

    delving into the detail

  58. Max (14:52:11) :
    In the Sunday Times
    Sloppy science is seeping into the climate watchdog

    And just when you think they’re getting it; they’re not.

    “If we are to have the best possible predictions about climate change, urgent decisions need to be taken. The agreeable but gaffe-prone Pachauri should accept it would be wise to walk now, so some heavy-hitters can step in and prevent a disastrous slide in the IPCC’s credibility….”

    They’re going to drag this carcass until there is nothing left.

  59. No doubt there will be further retractions of hyped catastrophic IPCC wibble in the weeks and months to come.

    Eventually we will get to the real point. There is a solid argument for increased levels of atmospheric CO2 causing an increase in temperatures at the surface. The questions are how much and how soon?

    There are two ways and only two ways to know the answers. One is to see what has happened to date. The other is to wait and see what happens in the future.

    To date the evidence appears to be inconclusive because: (i) the measurements of surface temperature are only accurate to a pretty wide margin for error and every declared result appears to be within the margin for error and (ii) there are serious arguments yet to be resolved about the extent to which CO2 in the atmosphere affects temperature compared to other possible causes (including causes that might not yet have been identified).

    All the hyperbole about catastrophic consequences is plainly just speculation. We’ve seen and heard it all before many times in relation to other things.

    One thing we should never forget is that increased atmospheric CO2 might have severe consequences. The simple fact is that no one knows because it cannot be, and has not been, measured and shown to be true. Only time will tell.

    Throwing money we don’t have at a problem that might or might not exist is sheer madness. But, of course, those who throw the money are not affected by the cost, they are in power so they just vote themselves a pay rise when tofu quiche goes up in price.

  60. And the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was endowed by the swedish centrl bank and not by mr Nobel btw.

  61. DirkH (15:04:42) :
    Probably the german companies who won the tenders for Gordon’s windmills have pointed all this out long ago, and the new 3 GW gas plants are laid out to have fast reaction times.

    There may be other contracts, but it was Statkraft and Statoil, both of Norway that got these contracts for the Doggerbank.

    Press releases

    Statkraft

    http://www.statkraft.no/pressesenter/pressemeldinger-2009/tildelt-havvindsonen-doggerbank-i-storbritannia.aspx

    Statoil

    http://www.statoil.com/no/NewsAndMedia/News/2010/Pages/08JanDoggerBank.aspx

    I am guessing Statoil has some gas to offer as well…

  62. I caught a small portion of a History Channel program that was discussing the science of the Himalayas, India, monsoons, glaciers, etc.

    However, the one thing that caught my ear was they mentioned the geology of the Indian subcontinent plowing into the Asian continent was the cause of much of the reduction in atmospheric CO2 during the last 2.5 million years.

    Has anyone seen this theory before?

  63. Whoever from this site has the knowledge and professional standing to submit to the Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology (and imo only such people should submit, so as not to overload the enquiry) must be careful to read the list of Committee members

    http://tinyurl.com/yk96v7k

    and to ensure that certain members (starting with Dr Bob Spink) receive a copy of their submissions. Willis is a Liberal, and a Warmist. But there are 12 other members.

    Depending on when the Election is called this Committee is likely never to report, but it’s important that those MPs likely to retain their seats get the maximum help to understand these comlex issues

  64. Some background on the cartoon above

    The title of the cartoon “Duniya ke Neta” in Hindi means “Leader of the World.” The “leader” may be sarcasm or derisory.

    “Duniya” = World; “Neta” = Leader.

  65. View from the Solent (15:52:31) :

    Mapou (13:32:56) :

    I can’t believe the mainstream media is still vouching for Pachauri and the IPCC after everything that’s happened. It’s scandalous. The Nobel committee should also be investigated for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to an agenda-driven organization that is riddled with conflict of interest problems. The IPCC is looking more and more like a criminal organization and the prestige of the Nobel is bound to suffer as a result.
    ——————————————————–

    Mapou, that’s a common misconception. The Nobel committee awards scientific prizes (the real ones). The so-called Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of politicians chosen by the Norwegian parliament.
    =========================
    =========================
    it’s starting to look like “peace prizes” are given out, to influence/bolster the recipients.

  66. FatBigot writes:
    “Eventually we will get to the real point. There is a solid argument for increased levels of atmospheric CO2 causing an increase in temperatures at the surface. The questions are how much and how soon?”

    But this is exactly the problem – there isn’t! The measurements, in the graphs I have seen on various sites, clearly demonstrate that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOWS global warming, with a time lag of approximately 800 years.

    We are now approx 800 years on from the Medieval Warming period…

  67. Wow.

    I generally attribute Climate Change Blas (CCB) of scientists to either righteous crusades (we are right dammit, so the ends justifies the means), or to wanting to fund the research in the work they love, so they fudge the results to assure future funding.

    Most of the climategate stuff seems to fall into category one.

    This, however, is a whole different animal. This is blatant and intentional fraud. Someone in the position of power the Pachauri holds, should be prosecuted for such abuse of his position.

    On another note:

    Craig (12:51:33) :

    “One of the supermarkets here in the Chicago area has little TV monitors set up so that the folks in the check-out lines can be entertained (and watch advertisements) while they wait. Along the bottom of the screen is a little news-scroll, like you see on Fox News or CNN (or, presumably, other news channels).

    “To my surprise, the scroll said something like (I missed the 1st couple of words) ” . . . report on glaciers is riddled with errors”! It’s quite a sea-change to see something like this get play through this kind of outlet. Amazing”

    Craig, you saw a headline from the AP. Unfortunately, the story itself was far more slanted than the headline. Seth Borenstein (sp?) wrote this article, making it seem as if all the IPCC was guilty of was bad editing by transposing a number. You can read my comments on the story here:

    http://digg.com/environment/UN_Climate_Report_Riddled_With_Errors_On_Glaciers

  68. “Carsten Arnholm, Norway (16:36:07) : …]

    Eon, RWE, Siemens are german. Ok, Norway’s companies are in the game as well:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100108-709678.html?mod=WSJ_World_MIDDLEHeadlinesEurope

    For Statoil and gas, that makes sense.

    “FatBigot (16:22:06) :
    [...]
    One thing we should never forget is that increased atmospheric CO2 might have severe consequences. The simple fact is that no one knows because it cannot be, and has not been, measured and shown to be true. Only time will tell. ”

    In my opinion, the person who has a good model that is in line with observations of radiative fluxes at varying height in the atmosphere is Fernenc Miskolczi.

    http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction

    “For this situation when OLR and water vapor is constant, FM has calculated transient
    mean global temperature increase as a consequence of the doubling of CO2 concentration;
    see table 6 in the 2004 IDOJARAS paper. The result is 0.48 °C. Where OLR varies but
    water is constant the result is 0.24 C.”

    While it is true that THE TEAM doesn’t have any clue here, Miskolczi has. Keep in mind that the above numbers use the unrealistic assumption that water vapour stays constant which it won’t. According to his model water vapour will decline when CO2 goes up.

  69. OT, PaulH (15:26:37) :

    High Noon? If Gary Cooper were here he would know how to deal with this mess. :-)

    Right, pardner, but there’s always George W. Bush, who was demonized as a “Cowboy” by the “progressive” Left here in America. But then they started complaining that Bush wasn’t acting enough like a Cowboy when he refused to talk directly with North Korea one on one, a really stupid idea – think “China” for example – and pushed on with “six party” talks which included China and the other regional big players.

  70. Clearly means that Pachauri and his TERI glacier specialist
    – left 2035 as part of IPCC report, though knowing better
    – kept silent when MSM used it as example for the catastrophy to come,
    – but instead even acquired taxpayers’ money under that headline,
    clearly knowing that it is completely wrong.

    This is called fraud.

    The fact that stupid gov bureaucrats didn’t get it “after careful consideration” does not reduce their liability. So TERI obviously is an organization that works agressively with wrong facts, misleading the public, governments and the UN.
    Where are the lawywers?

  71. Dave F (16:38:30) :

    After Oil for Food, why would it be surprising to find another organ of the UN corrupted?

    Let me make this observation.

    Last night, Friday, the airwaves in America were taken over by George Clooney’s “Hope For Haiti Now” telethon. Across the US, worldwide, support has been pouring in, many people donating to many fine charitable organizations.

    Have you noticed anyone in the US asking for a unified UN effort? In the international press? Anyone, anywhere, wanting the UN to help out and coordinate the aid?

  72. It appears the MSM are finally smelling blood in the water. When the Times wades in with two stories the jig is surely up.

    I wonder if George Monbiot can spin this?

  73. pyromancer 14:59:26

    Sorry, but no one will get sued,lose their professorship,their dept. head or nothing. There are too many “folks in charge” that will prevent this IMHO.
    I’ve seen it all from sorry generals to corporate misfits.Now all of us “deniers” will get a chance to see the no result too. Look at Mann-$4500,000 grant just rewarded. Anything happen to the “arctic explorers” from last summer? No, and how about Gore and his ten million degrees-no. He still is the poster boy for AGW. The US senate?No-not a peep. I’m sorry,but I have no expectations about any of this.

  74. “Richard M (16:46:06) :
    [...]
    However, the one thing that caught my ear was they mentioned the geology of the Indian subcontinent plowing into the Asian continent was the cause of much of the reduction in atmospheric CO2 during the last 2.5 million years. ”

    When fresh rock is exposed to the atmosphere, weathering sets in, consuming huge amounts of CO2.

  75. Re: Nobel Peace Prizes vs. Scientific Prizes

    In my opinion, it does not matter whether or not there two committees are awarding different Nobel prizes. The prestige comes from the well-known and well-regarded Nobel name. If one committee drags the name in mud, the entire organization and its reputation will surfer as a result. Maybe it’s time that the scientific Nobel committee distances itself from the political Nobel committee by refusing to allow the Nobel name to be associated with the political prize.

  76. TerryBixler (12:09:59) :

    “Someone needs to keep Kerry and Boxer “in the loop” as they still beat the IPCC AGW drum.”

    They also reject ClimateGate which is now under investigation of the UK Parliament.

    Just let them continue to “drum their own grave”.

  77. the longer Pachauri stays on as the IPCC head the better, and as the weeks go by the less credibility it has.

    The real objective of those interested in climate sciences should be to see
    (a) the organisation completely restructured with a new set of guidelines.
    (b) control take away from the UN.
    (c) dismantled altogether.

    I think some political decisions have been taken in the back rooms after the Copenhagen shambles that someone has to be accountable for the political humiliation put on a number of leaders.
    Hence the Times articles.
    So the real question is who will be likely to replace Pachauri, and is the IPCC fixable.

  78. Interesting. There are some inevitable conclusions to be made. Seeing that the proposal for funding was fundamentally flawed in a manner that should have been immediately obvious to experts in the field, one or several of the following conditions applies:

    1. The applicants for funding were incompetent.

    2. The applicants for funding were dishonest.

    3. The committee granting the funding was incompetent.

    4. The committee granting the funding was politically or financially corrupted.

    There are no other alternatives.

  79. Prediction:

    The IPCC will disappear before 2035 – perhaps sooner.

    Here is Dr Syed Hasnain the denier claiming no outside money funded his Glacier program, which appear to be a lie.

  80. u.k.(us) (16:47:40) :

    “it’s starting to look like “peace prizes” are given out, to influence/bolster the recipients.”

    I can not think of a different way to give a public figure or some public organization a million dollars for unspecified future actions and not have it be called a bribe.

    Can you?

    If you handed the president of the United States a personal check for a million dollars because of something you wanted him to do, and he accepted it, you would likely both go to jail.

  81. You beat me to it —

    IMHO, Dr. Pachauri is toast.

    That clicking sound you hear from the toaster is the noise it makes shortly before the toast is ejected. The good doctor may be trying to put on a good face about his situation with his talk of lawsuits and staying on with the IPCC, but it’s nothing more than the posturing we’ve seen so often in the past, before the door hits the guilty party on the butt as they exit the building.

  82. The ill fated Catlin Arctic Survey rears its’ ignominious head again in an article in todays UK Daily Telegraph. Quote ‘Pen Hadow admits battery was the problem on Arctic Climate Change’. The full story can be read at http://www.telegraph.co.uk under Catlin Arctic Survey. The cost of this farce was some £3,000,000 sterling shed no tears for the idiots who sponsered this comedy of errors

  83. it just goes to show that people who publically hold themselves out as scientific can lie with the best of them.

    Particularly when they are backed into a corner.

    Credibility increased because we pointed out the error — only after somebody else pointed out the error.

    There are people who hold themselves out as scientific who lie, distort, and steal.

    You’d be surprised who they are.

  84. We are approaching the point where the Anthropogenic Global Warming Scare is turning into a criminal conspiracy involving the UN IPCC, the World Meteorological organization, Government Officials, Greenpeace, WWF, CRU and NASA scientists and Al Gore.

    Why am I thinking of Guantanamo Bay or is it not big enough?

    These are interesting times.

  85. This is exciting. So much exposure of corruption and lies almost hourly now. I can’t wait to see how all this develops in the weeks ahead.

  86. Asking if the IPCC is fixable is like saying is the Titanic fixable. No! Just create a new one from scratch as it’s impossible to go back and alter all the reports and literature generated by the IPCC to remove all their misconceptions, exaggerations and lies. Simply discard the IPCC and all their findings, and start from scratch. I would also add that NASA should get out of the game of climate monitoring and stick to space exploration (although I doubt they will do much there given China will overtake them soon enough).

  87. Steve Goddard (12:41:53) :

    It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

    ************************

    It’s worse than we thought.

  88. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/24/climate-change-glaciergate-mckie has an appalling ill-informed opinion piece on ‘Glaciegate’ by Robin McKie.

    What is interesting is not the tosh he serves up, but the robust almost unanimous rejection of the piece by commenters, with an extremely nice rejection by MoveAnyMountain.

    This is in the Grauniad Environment Section no less. I think something is starting to melt away. Not glaciers, but public support for the AGW theory.

  89. Ron de Haan (17:30:20) :

    We are approaching the point where the Anthropogenic Global Warming Scare is turning into a criminal conspiracy involving the UN IPCC, the World Meteorological organization, Government Officials, Greenpeace, WWF, CRU and NASA scientists and Al Gore.

    Why am I thinking of Guantanamo Bay or is it not big enough?

    These are interesting times.

    ****************************

    I’m starting to re-think my negative position on waterboarding. Hmm.

  90. They all appear to be liars and thieves. And they all know each other. And they all appear to know the others are liars and thieves. A nest of vipers.

  91. nofreewind (12:55:18) :

    This glacier melt thing is nonsense regarding drinking water. We have no glaciers in the eastern US and only a small amount even in the West. Our rivers and streams flow year round.

    I have several “intermittent streams” on property I own on the south face of a mountain that usually dry up in summer. Common phenomenon of very small streams and those water-sucking deciduous trees.

    The Eastern US has fairly even precip throughout the year, http://www.bluehill.org/climate/pre2009.gif shows Blue Hill Massachusetts averages 4″ (10 cm) every month of they year. India and many other regions have a very different pattern with dry weather much of the year and a rainy monsoon. Most of the water in the Ganges River, with a source in the Himalayans, is from monsoon rain. It covers a much larger area than do the glaciers.

  92. Nev (17:39:55) :

    Just a heads-up…major new errors discovered in IPCC report

    **********************************

    For all of us that have been waiting for this day when the darkness of this scam was deepest, it is satisfying to see the first dominos of justice start to fall. Whomever leaked the CRU emails, thank you. You were the first domino.

  93. Sir, most esteemed Wattsupwiththat blogmaster, you might do a seperate post on this. A major university govdocs reference librarian sent this to me today:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

    From The Sunday Times
    January 24, 2010
    UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters
    Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor

    THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for
    wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and
    severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

    It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been
    subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from
    scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak.
    The report’s own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt
    the evidence was not strong enough.

    The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
    that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of
    global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public
    debate. It was central to discussions at last month’s Copenhagen
    climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for
    compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations
    blamed for creating the most emissions.

    Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested
    British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 —
    could be linked to global warming. Barack Obama, the US president,
    said last autumn: “More powerful storms and floods threaten every
    continent.”

    Last month Gordon Brown, the prime minister, told the Commons that the
    financial agreement at Copenhagen “must address the great injustice
    that . . . those hit first and hardest by climate change are those
    that have done least harm”.

    The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The
    Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report
    that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. It turned
    out that the bogus claim had been lifted from a news report published
    in 1999 by New Scientist magazine.

    The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC’s 2007 report in which
    a separate section warned that the world had “suffered rapidly rising
    costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s”.

    It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and
    cited the unpublished report, saying: “One study has found that while
    the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the
    values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure,
    there still remains an underlying rising trend.”

    The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which
    the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at
    the time the climate body issued its report.

    When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat.
    It said: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical
    relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe
    losses.”

    Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of
    the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at
    least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report
    urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and
    disaster impacts — but were ignored.

    The claim will now be re-examined and could be withdrawn. Professor
    Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a climatologist at the Universite Catholique
    de Louvain in Belgium, who is vice-chair of the IPCC, said: “We are
    reassessing the evidence and will publish a report on natural
    disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings. Despite recent
    events the IPCC process is still very rigorous and scientific.”

    The academic paper at the centre of the latest questions was written
    in 2006 by Robert Muir-Wood, head of research at Risk Management
    Solutions, a London consultancy, who later became a contributing
    author to the section of the IPCC’s 2007 report dealing with climate
    change impacts. He is widely respected as an expert on disaster
    impacts.

    Muir-Wood wanted to find out if the 8% year-on-year increase in global
    losses caused by weather-related disasters since the 1960s was larger
    than could be explained by the impact of social changes like growth in
    population and infrastructure.

    Such an increase, coinciding with rising temperatures, might suggest
    that global warming was to blame. If proven this would be highly
    significant, both politically and scientifically, because it would
    confirm the many predictions that global warming will increase the
    frequency and severity of natural hazards.

    In the research Muir-Wood looked at a wide range of hazards, including
    tropical cyclones, thunder and hail storms, and wildfires as well as
    floods and hurricanes.

    He found from 1950 to 2005 there was no increase in the impact of
    disasters once growth was accounted for. For 1970-2005, however, he
    found a 2% annual increase which “corresponded with a period of rising
    global temperatures,”

    Muir-Wood was, however, careful to point out that almost all this
    increase could be accounted for by the exceptionally strong hurricane
    seasons in 2004 and 2005. There were also other more technical factors
    that could cause bias, such as exchange rates which meant that
    disasters hitting the US would appear to cost proportionately more in
    insurance payouts.

    Despite such caveats, the IPCC report used the study in its section on
    disasters and hazards, but cited only the 1970-2005 results.

    The IPCC report said: “Once the data were normalised, a small
    statistically significant trend was found for an increase in annual
    catastrophe loss since 1970 of 2% a year.” It added: “Once losses are
    normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising
    trend.”

    Muir-Wood’s paper was originally commissioned by Roger Pielke,
    professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, also an
    expert on disaster impacts, for a workshop on disaster losses in 2006.
    The researchers who attended that workshop published a statement
    agreeing that so far there was no evidence to link global warming with
    any increase in the severity or frequency of disasters. Pielke has
    also told the IPCC that citing one section of Muir-Wood’s paper in
    preference to the rest of his work, and all the other peer-reviewed
    literature, was wrong.

    He said: “All the literature published before and since the IPCC
    report shows that rising disaster losses can be explained entirely by
    social change. People have looked hard for evidence that global
    warming plays a part but can’t find it. Muir-Wood’s study actually
    confirmed that.”

    Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the Tyndall Centre, which
    advises the UK government on global warming, said there was no real
    evidence that natural disasters were already being made worse by
    climate change. He said: “A proper analysis shows that these claims
    are usually superficial”

    Such warnings may prove uncomfortable for Miliband whose recent
    speeches have often linked climate change with disasters such as the
    floods that recently hit Bangladesh and Cumbria. Last month he said:
    “We must not let the sceptics pass off political opinion as scientific
    fact. Events in Cumbria give a foretaste of the kind of weather
    runaway climate change could bring. Abroad, the melting of the
    Himalayan glaciers that feed the great rivers of South Asia could put
    hundreds of millions of people at risk of drought. Our security is at
    stake.”

    Muir-Wood himself is more cautious. He said: “The idea that
    catastrophes are rising in cost partly because of climate change is
    completely misleading. “We could not tell if it was just an
    association or cause and effect. Also, our study included 2004 and
    2005 which was when there were some major hurricanes. If you took
    those years away then the significance of climate change vanished.”

    Some researchers have argued that it is unfair to attack the IPCC too
    strongly, pointing out that some errors are inevitable in a report as
    long and technical as the IPCC’s round-up of climate science. “Part of
    the problem could simply be that expectations are too high,” said one
    researcher. “We have been seen as a scientific gold standard and
    that’s hard to live up to.”

    Professor Christopher Field,director of the Department of Global
    Ecology at the Carnegie Institution in California, who is the new
    co-chairman of the IPCC working group overseeing the climate impacts
    report, said the 2007 report had been broadly accurate at the time it
    was written.

    He said: “The 2007 study should be seen as “a snapshot of what was
    known then. Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong
    we can fix it next time around.” However he confirmed he would be
    introducing rigorous new review procedures for future reports to
    ensure errors were kept to a minimum.

  94. Political Junkie is right!

    Political Junkie (17:09:20) :
    Interesting. There are some inevitable conclusions to be made. Seeing that the proposal for funding was fundamentally flawed in a manner that should have been immediately obvious to experts in the field, one or several of the following conditions applies:
    1. The applicants for funding were incompetent.
    2. The applicants for funding were dishonest.
    3. The committee granting the funding was incompetent.
    4. The committee granting the funding was politically or financially corrupted.
    There are no other alternatives.

  95. Anthony knows “High Noon”. It’s time everyone watched Gary Cooper in “High Noon”. When the odds seem overwhelming, that is not the time to give in — if you are tough enough to take on the odds.

    jack morrow (17:05:31) :

    pyromancer 14:59:26

    Sorry, but no one will get sued,lose their professorship,their dept. head or nothing. There are too many “folks in charge” that will prevent this IMHO.
    I’ve seen it all from sorry generals to corporate misfits.Now all of us “deniers” will get a chance to see the no result too. Look at Mann-$4500,000 grant just rewarded. Anything happen to the “arctic explorers” from last summer? No, and how about Gore and his ten million degrees-no. He still is the poster boy for AGW. The US senate?No-not a peep. I’m sorry,but I have no expectations about any of this.

    Jack, keep the faith. Take a look at the “Quote of the Week #77″ — “Hide This After Jim Checks It”. Anthony’s dogged pursuit; Steve McIntyre’s amazing ability to cut to the chase over and over again since at least 2007. (I didn’t know the falsifications [the issue] even existed at that time, dummy me.) Rage is building at the way individuals in “respected” and “trusted” positions — U.N. (hah), research universities, professors of “science”, legislative committee chairs, heads of government departments, our wonderful environmental organizations (charities – NGOs), even our predominant energy corporations — all lying to us; all on the take in one way or another.

    Don’t give up. No one gave Scott Brown a “snowball’s chance in hell” at the beginning in the election for the Kennedy seat. He emerged victorous because “the people” can smell scam once enough is exposed. That seat is now “The People’s Seat”.

    This battle — and it is a battle, High Noon — is about the long haul. Keep repeating the names, know the financial links, know the fraudulent science by pseudo-scientists, understand about the feeding of students at all levels of our educational system lies about the science, hate the abominable altering of the raw historical temperature data that thousands of individuals have gathered faithfully over the years. Go after the main perpetrators of the fraud.

    Jack Morrow and all the others like you (and me), we see it; we know the problem. Anthony presents it day after day in numerous imaginative and engaging forms. Let’s lose our cynicism and go forward with optimism and toughness.

  96. Richard M (16:46:06) :

    I caught a small portion of a History Channel program that was discussing the science of the Himalayas, India, monsoons, glaciers, etc.

    However, the one thing that caught my ear was they mentioned the geology of the Indian subcontinent plowing into the Asian continent was the cause of much of the reduction in atmospheric CO2 during the last 2.5 million years.

    Has anyone seen this theory before?

    Yes it has been rattling around for some time I recall hearing it many years ago. The Himalayas are still uplifting (about 1/4 inch a year as I recall).

    Larry

  97. Glaciergate? Please no more gates! Can we try something else like “Goons of Glacierville” or “Pachauri’s Predicament”? Gate is an over used suffix, imho.

  98. so it’s all about getting other peoples money

    asking for money has taken many forms and this video shows a way so similar to the global warming grant money acquisition technique….particularly from 2:45 to 3:10, the East Anglia, CRU team is highlighted ;-), (East Anglia is actually mentioned)

  99. Political Junkie (17:09:20) :

    Seeing that the proposal for funding was fundamentally flawed in a manner that should have been immediately obvious to experts in the field, one or several of the following conditions applies:
    1. The applicants for funding were incompetent.
    2. The applicants for funding were dishonest.
    3. The committee granting the funding was incompetent.
    4. The committee granting the funding was politically or financially corrupted.

    5. All of the above.

    5 seems to be the correct answer.

  100. This whole episode is utterly disgusting. Scandal after scandal involving embezzlement of public money is being revealed, yet the UN and Govts plod on unconcerned, claiming the science behind global warming scaremongering is real. To me its frustrating in the extreme.
    If Pachauri doesnt go after this I dont know what we can do.

  101. An interesting article in the UK Daily Mail states –
    ….Dr Murari Lal [Lead author for AR4 Asia chapter] also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research….

    “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

  102. Harry (15:22:46) :

    No free wind

    “This glacier melt thing is nonsense regarding drinking water. We have no glaciers in the eastern US and only a small amount even in the West.”

    Living in Western Washington State…if our Glaciers were to disappear a big chunk of our drinking water would as well. I accept in many areas of the world people depend on rain water runoff and man made reservoirs for drinking water, or deep wells.

    Out here we depend on Snow melt.
    The Columbia River is mostly snow melt as well, we depend on that for electricity.

    No Glaciers = ”No Snow to melt in the summer”.

    All true Harry. On the other hand if glaicers are neither growing or shrinking, the run off is the same as if there is no glacier, just the timing is different. Now I am not going into the science of what is actually happening with India’s glaciers. I will say though that people have built dams for a long time, to both conserve the water and to have supplies in the summer. A good C.B. estimate would be an important thing to have before we change the world for a maybe problem.

  103. This story is different from Climategate because it has a new dimension.

    Climategate was about a group of enthusiasts bending scientific methodology to show results that suited their theories. In climategate the theory became a political cause, a hysterical belief system that in the minds of the “scientists” justified their loose methodology. What they did was immoral but it might have had an element of sincerity.

    Glaciergate/Pachaurigate/IPCCgate is more disreputable because what has been exposed is new motive; The new motive to profit financially by inventing completely unproven theories and wrapping them up in scientific jargon and respectability.. For almost a decade Pachauri has harvested funds from the institutions like the EU who have fallen for his pseudoscience. He was allowed to do it because he was at the top of IPCC, the one with the responsibility to make sure that the science in the IPCC reports had been properly scrutinised and peer reviewed.

    This scandal has broken the reputation of the IPCC.

  104. Harry said;
    ” Out here we depend on Snow melt.
    The Columbia River is mostly snow melt as well, we depend on that for electricity.

    No Glaciers = ”No Snow to melt in the summer””.
    —–
    Harry,
    If you read again what nofreewind said, you will appreciate that the water you drink is, for by far the greater part, water that fell on the Rockies the winter before you enjoyed it spilling out of your faucet. The fraction of that fine water that fell on mountain-tops hundreds of years ago is very small. If the latter was what you relied on exclusively, you’d be flushing a lot less often.

  105. Nev: Falsification of the hurricane figures has been going on in the IPCC for a long time; th4e following eg is form 2005, and there are other examples – the manipulation is systematic:

    Dr Chris Landsea, former IPCC author who is the world expert on hurricane & cyclone activity, resigned from the IPCC with the following statement (letter in full on this url):

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

    “It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an
    unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global
    warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible
    for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside
    of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very
    difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the
    assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify
    themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements
    far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the
    credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish
    our role in public policy.

    My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how
    he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr.
    Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current
    understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed
    when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the
    misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the
    IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking
    as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an
    IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or
    misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference
    and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and
    that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even
    though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection
    between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw
    nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to
    the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must
    undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.”
    [worth reading in full]

  106. The UK ‘Times’ newspaper is becoming intriguing! Stories in January have :

    ‘UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters’

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

    ‘UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report’ [Actually, they mean Pechauri!]

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

    ..and the times broke the ‘Glaciergate’ story. Compare these to December’s stories such as ‘Losing Nemo: Is there time to save the seas?’ about oceanic acidification and similar :

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article6933689.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

    There does seem to be a distinct change, and I must stress that this is a Murdoch newspaper. Although he may not interfere with the day to day editorial content I do not think they would change direction without his okay. If so then it may be that his global empire may have been given leave to study AGW critically. If so this could rapidly speed up the rate at which AGW crumbles – it can’t stand up to scrutiny, just look at what the past week has done to the IPCC and Pechauri.

    In the UK it may also have a knock on effect on the Tory leader, David Cameron. He has been trying to show himself as greener than green, but fellow Conservatives are more skeptical. If both the Times and the Telegraph are being critical of AGW, and UKIP gain support by their anti-AGW stance, then the Conservatives may change policy to an anti-AGW stance. It would mean they could point to all the pain the UK voters will have to suffer in support of AGW countermeasures, which, while bad enough, are worse in the midst of a recession.

  107. Ric Werme (17:51:52) :

    Most of the water in the Ganges River, with a source in the Himalayans,
    is from monsoon rain. It covers a much larger area than do the glaciers.

    Ric, I knew I took a rather simplistic view of the situation. It just doesn’t make sense to me that more precipitation, and stronger monsoons, even with increased temp is going to cause water shortages. Why not just build a few damns, instead of impoverishing the world, when it won’t work anyway.

    A Google of monthly precipitation India shows that most of the rain in India falls in July-Sept. The question would be, it is going to be so warm in July-Sept that snow would not fall in the Himalayas, but instead rain? Snow falling in Aug-September, the height of the monsoon season, would be locked away with the Northern Hemisphere fall cooling and would slowly melt the next spring/summer, just like it does in the high mountains of the western US. I haven’t completely explored this issue, but it seems like common sense to me.

    http://www.si-india.com/weather.htm

  108. Anyone heard from Al Gore lately? Would love to hear his take on Climategate and Glaciergate.

    The more the AGW defenders deny the obvious the worse it will be for them in the future. Turn yourself in now and maybe we’ll go easy on you.

    Whomever leaked the docs in climategate should be given a medal!

  109. Sam (19:47:36) :

    Nev: Falsification of the hurricane figures has been going on in the IPCC for a long time; th4e following eg is form 2005, and there are other examples – the manipulation is systematic:

    Dr Chris Landsea, former IPCC author who is the world expert on hurricane & cyclone activity, resigned from the IPCC with the following statement (letter in full on this url):

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

    “It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an
    unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global
    warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible
    for preparing the text on hurricanes

    What’s fascinating to me is that there seems to be a bit of a New Zealand climate mafia at work within the IPCC. Trenberth is an ex-pat kiwi, and New Zealanders were all over WG1 and WG2 (the latter contained the false Himalayas claim.

    See: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2010/01/nzs-top-climate-scientists-oversaw-ipccs-most-embarrassing-error-said-nothing.html

    If you look at the list of NZ ‘reviewers’ on WG2 referenced at that link, they’re full of NZ government policy analysts. In Air Con I recall a mention that the then NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark (now no. 3 at the UN) was all gung-ho on climate change and wanting NZ to lead the world.

    The Climategate emails are full of references to the Kiwis at NIWA like Renwick and Salinger. Salinger should have picked up on that fake Himalayas claim.

    It’s almost as if NZ is where the line between politics and science blurred the most, and look at the influence on the process.

    Then of course there’s the fudged temperature data from NIWA that hit the news after Climategate, and that led to examinations of the temperature data elsewhere…

    I dunno, maybe I’m joining too many dots…but it just seems the kiwis are donkey-deep in this.

  110. Norm in Calgary (20:07:04) :

    Turn yourself in now and maybe we’ll go easy on you.

    LMAO

    Yeah, it’s like Norms says, turns yourselfs in and maybes
    we’lls goes easys on ya…see!

  111. It may well be true that Pachauri is not corrupt, in the same way that Gore may not be corrupt. The mere fact that they personally make money out of Climate Change does not mean that they are necessarily wrong. If there is corruption, it may well be at a lower level. Certainly, this amateurish error about Himalayan glacier melt would suggest that this is true. We can certainly entertain the idea that lower echelons are feeding their masters with what their masters want to hear. This is not unusual.

    The problem is that, if this is so, it is not unlikely that it is so in every UN department. Corruption may very well be from the bottom up, if the ‘up’ have already decided what they want ‘the bottom’ to say. If this is true, then it is the worst possible form of corruption since its tentacles spread throughout the organisation.

    But the problem goes further, does it not? This ‘spread out’ corruption then afflicts politicians. Politicians have no option but to accept the ‘advice’ they receive from the likes of Pachauri because they themselves have created the beast.

    And then we have the latest cock-up – the very expensive battery failure in the Arctic expedition. Oh dear! Never mind, the hand drills still showed that the North polar ice is melting, even though the adventurers were 350 miles from the pole. And therefore as a result of their adventure, the North polar ice is going to melt shortly. Pull the other one! Maybe there was nothing wrong with the battery. Maybe the results were wrong and the battery claim was the easy way out. Who knows?

    But this ‘bottom up’ corruption goes further, does it not? How about the claims of the World Health Organisation? How corrupt are they? Even worse, how corrupt are the politicians who place their trust in the statements of the WHO? To what extent is the WHO a convenient excuse for politicians to interfere in the way in which we live our lives?

    Am I a conspiracy theorist? Maybe, but, if I am, it is only because the blatant facts lead me there. For example, it is blatantly untrue that alcohol in the UK is cheap. It is blatantly untrue that passive smoking is killing people. It is blatantly untrue that, for the vast majority, salt in our food is dangerous (our bodies get rid of excess salt by excretion, although some people’s bodies do not work as well as others in that respect).

    If our politicians took less notice of health scares and corrupt advice, we would all be much better off. Unfortunately, the need to increase tax revenue seems to be paramount.

  112. Norm in Calgary (20:07:04) :

    Anyone heard from Al Gore lately?

    There’s been heat on him, like several million degrees.

  113. Interesting. Not entirely surprised that the Kiwi’s are at the nexus, knee-deep in Climategate donkey $hi+.

    Nev (20:22:14) :
    Sam (19:47:36) :

    What’s fascinating to me is that there seems to be a bit of a New Zealand climate mafia at work within the IPCC…

    It’s almost as if NZ is where the line between politics and science blurred the most, and look at the influence on the process…

    I dunno, maybe I’m joining too many dots…but it just seems the kiwis are donkey-deep in this.

  114. “I dunno, maybe I’m joining too many dots…but it just seems the kiwis are donkey-deep in this”

    Countries like NZ have everything to gain and little to lose. NZ already produces a lot of geothermal and hydro power, and doesn’t have a resource base like coal. Therefore, if they can politically shove this in a direction that already suits them and their marketing (NZ is marketed as a ‘green’ country), then why not? NZ is also a heartland for Greenpeace and other environmental organizations, and your average Kiwi man on the street is usually pretty ‘green’. If NZ can make it’s neighbouring countries have higher energy costs, while not drastically increasing their own, then it’s a net win for them.

    It’s closest neighbour, Australia, on the other hand, has large amounts of coal and resources, and can produce some of the cheapest energy in the world (that’s why Australian houses have the largest average floor space of anywhere). Any change to the energy production in Australia results in restriction of energy and industry. That’s why Australia traditionally wanted nothing to do with Kyoto and AGW, and it’s only in the last two years that Rudd has been blabbing about it that any change in direction has happened at all. However, given the employment (and tax) base of Australia relies of digging stuff up and burning or melting it, it won’t take much of a wind of change to get people back being either skeptical or neutral of AGW – witness the stand in the Senate – although that was partly caused by the Green party rejecting the cap and trade bill for not going far enough. Deep down, I think the average Australian is more worried about losing their job than emitting c02, and that’s where the vote will hit the ballot box.

  115. New Zealand is an absolute core group of hoaxers. While the MSM down there is complicit or ignorant, any science student could detect the gross alteration of raw data and the substitution of data that emphasizes the totally hypothetical global warming. One would think it would be a hard pretense to keep up in that winter sweater wear sales remain steady.

  116. UPDATE3: Pachauri now bizarrely claims in a press interview that the IPCC’s credibility has been strengthened.

    Hey, this kind of declaration is not new. Wasn’t it Briffa or Jones that stated that the fact that there was divergence in the tree ring proxies actually strengthened the case for man-made global warming?

  117. brc (21:45:18) :

    “Countries like NZ have everything to gain and little to lose. NZ already produces a lot of geothermal and hydro power, and doesn’t have a resource base like coal. ”

    Not so. NZ has not kept up with developing its energy resources. The ‘greens’ and the greenish inclination of New Zealanders has restricted its development of any energy in recent years through its Resource Management legislation. The are ‘fluffing around’ with windmills at present but even these are problematical as they despoil the landscape that is important to the tourist industy. – Catch 22 ! It has abundant coal resources which it won’t increase in use (because of its self concious and pretentious ‘green image’) – but it hypocritically sells its coal to China instead so they can burn it!

    New Zealand is very dependent upon its dairy and tourist industries. Both of these are target industries from the AGW mob because of CO2 emissions and ‘air miles’ .

    So you see it is in fact quite vulnerable. The Labour government’s ‘love affair’ with the U.N . and anyone who likes to contol everyone’s lives induced it to ‘rush in’ to be first to impliment climate contol legislation. The present Conservative governmnent is simply a paler shade of pink – so – more of the same I’m afraid.

    BTW Dr. Jim Salinger (ex NZ prominent climateologist) gets a nention in the infamouse claimategate emails. He trained at East Anglia university at some time and would have been deeply involved in all the shinanigans as I see it.

    Hence the temperature records that show the incline!
    M

  118. The UN should have hired Bernie Madoff to head up the IPCC – they would then have got a more honest approach to climate science…

  119. Junican (21:09:53) :
    If our politicians took less notice of health scares and corrupt advice, we would all be much better off. Unfortunately, the need to increase tax revenue seems to be paramount.
    —————–
    brc (21:45:18) :
    If NZ can make it’s neighbouring countries have higher energy costs, while not drastically increasing their own, then it’s a net win for them.
    —————–

    At least in the US, finding additional sources of federal government income indeed is paramount. There is no way at this point that the US can reduce spending enough to live off the current $tream and tax $cheme. We’ve sold radio spectrum, drilling rights, logging rights… and the rest of our assets are collateral on loans from China. The interest, social security and health care alone will eat the whole pie in a few years.
    Combine that with the current desire to redistribute wealth from banking and oil industries to citizens and illegal “residents” alike, and it is pretty clear why climate control looks like such a great opportunity to fulfill both objectives. It’s the money. It’s always been about the money. (Tobacco is about the money, too.) Climate control is an industry with incredible potential for generating tax revenue plus an entire asset structure (cap and TRADE) on top of equity markets we have now. It’s ripe for speculation and making a fast (and very large) buck after the oil $tream dries up. Everyone, not just the likes of Gore and Soros, is looking at it for “what’s in it for me.” NASA doesn’t have a mission after the shuttle retires. Climate is their only real future. Who needs NOAA charts when there is Google Earth? Selling off desert and ocean rights for windmills is new revenue.
    US, EU and UK need the UN to validate the need for all this. So, it’s not the UN leading stupid politicians into the trap for a few thousand research dollars. The research dollars are a bribe from the governments to ensure the UN committee gives the answers they need to implement the policy. Which rather begs the question why they basically fired the UN in Copenhagen for a “gaggle of governments” solution. Did they already know just how bad the report was? Anyway, as long as we are speculating about motive and conspiracies, I thought I would throw this in the mix.
    What happened with NOAA data is another -gate begging for investigation. Except I think that one could actually be criminal. But that’s another story.
    Watch, if this story goes nuclear, politicians will be running for the microphones to explain how they were duped by these reliable scientific and international sources, just like they were about WMD. I think that’s why it doesn’t get as much news coverage. Too many news people and politicians are going to look stupid again. Can’t blame Bush for this one. Here, it is a bad time between now and 2013 to look like fools.
    Obviously, this is an opinion and there isn’t any science to back this up. I am just offering some different speculation on motive.

  120. What would it take to fire Pachauri? It is obvious that he needs to be removed from his “elected” position for lapse in judgment, as he will not go quietly into the night. He still seems to believe that he has the support of the world to put out his bogus assessment report.

  121. The credibility of the MSM is more important to those who own it than defending the indefensible CAGW scam.

    The ability of politicians to continue to rule us is more us is more important to them than defending the indefensible CAGW scam.

    What we have been seeing since Climategate broke are the first signs of a sea change in how both groups are going to wriggle off the hook of culpability and throw the IPCC and many climate scientists to the wolves.

    The next few months should be very interesting!

  122. M. Simon (02:11:31) :
    Running an ordinary auto on the starter battery is unsustainable. We need to outlaw starter batteries.

    Running autos on starter batteries is perfectly sustainable. You just have to alternate.

    M. Simon (02:23:32) :
    Gate is an over used suffix, imho.

    Yes. and -ed has to go as well.

    -ism! Don’t Forget -ISM!
    That’s a very overused suffix. Man, ain’t that a truthism.

  123. Stephen Brown (14:12:00) :

    How very fortunate it is that, with modern electronic banking, it is impossible to eradicate all traces of the money trail. A good forensic accountant could have a field-day with Dr. Pachauri’s financial wheelings and dealings.

    Although such a task would appear to rival the cleansing of the Augean stables in magnitude, I’m sure that the latter day equivalents of the Alpheus and Peneus could be found.

    Just dial 911, give the password, and ask for Echelon.

  124. Who appointed Pachauri? Who ensured the governance process of IPCC. Who was / is accountable for ensuring segregation of interests and duties? Pachauri is clearly at fault but the buck must stop higher than him whether in the UN or governments. Who are the names? What are their interests?

    We need a spider chart and a pack of playing cards.

  125. Mauibrad (21:18:34) :

    What’s fascinating to me is that there seems to be a bit of a New Zealand climate mafia at work within the IPCC…

    A more subtle and insidious way to plant that dart is to refer to them as “organized climesters” or “members of organized clime.”

  126. Anticlimactic (15:32:20) :

    This blog about the 2035 error seems to give some more detail than I have seen elsewhere :

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16689.html

    Most interesting is the following paragraph :

    ‘Georg Kaser, an expert in glaciology with University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, gave a damning different assessment of the implications of the latest scandal affecting the credibility of the IPCC. Kaser says he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the IPCC report was published. “This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude. All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made. If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said ‘we will do better next time’. It is clear now that working group II has to be restructured.”‘

    So it gets worse : the IPCC were warned of the error BEFORE IT WAS PUBLISHED.

    IT APPEARS THEY DID NOT BOTHER TO CHECK AND CORRECT IT AS IT WAS THE SCARIEST MONSTER IN THEIR CLOSET!

    This suggests that it was included as pure propaganda with no scientific basis, AND THEY KNEW IT!

    …………

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#

    Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified
    By David Rose
    Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

    Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.

    Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. ‘He didn’t contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,’ he said.

    Lal had better hope there’s no e-mail trail of Kaser’s communication on a server somewhere, or that Kaser doesn’t have other support for his letter being received by other authors, such as insider testimony. It’s very unlikely that Kaser would lie — he has no motivation, being a fervent warmist and an IPCC bigshot. Lal OTOH has strong motivation to deny, since to admit would be a The End of his career.

    This denial of Lal’s, if it can be proven to be false, would have a more devastating impact on CAWGism than Climategate, because it will tar the IPCC at the highest level. It’ll be like what happened when Nixon’s fallback statements on Watergate unraveled. The public will start to suspect thoroughgoing untrustworthiness and call for a new broom .

    The Woodward & Bernsteins in the media ought to press for a copy of Kaser’s letter or e-mail, and dig around to see if any IPCC insiders were aware of Kaser’s criticism at the time.

  127. Hi

    After reading the article, I was shocked the way people have made hue and cry for the 2035 error. Eventhough, I admit that the stated year for the complete melting of the glaciers, 2035, was wrong, but this can not take away the credibility of the millions of scientists of all nationalities working for a cause that would benefit the mankind as a whole. I feel, it was immature of an organisation like IPCC to rely on the secondary data (as they took this 2035 from another reputed magazine) but at the same time the fact that global warming indeed has caused incorrigible damage to the environment cannot be written off. As for the money is concerned, which is huge and hard-earned of several people, the IPCC should definitely account for its usage, but at the same time when big conferences and elections can waste so much of taxpayer’s money, this was still unintenional and served some purpose. I have myself worked with TERI before a couple of times and am very much convinced of their research. I think, we shouldnt get emotional about things that we are normally not concerned about and just get involved to add fuel to the fire. As for the man, Dr. R.K Pachauri, by my own experiences with him I can only say that I have found him to be one of the most approachable guys of all those with that big worldwide recognition.

  128. I would think the real problem would come if the Himalayan glaciers STOPPED melting. If that were to happen, where would those millions of people get their water?

    Geoff Alder

  129. Harry (15:22:46) :

    No free wind

    “This glacier melt thing is nonsense regarding drinking water. We have no glaciers in the eastern US and only a small amount even in the West.”

    Living in Western Washington State…if our Glaciers were to disappear a big chunk of our drinking water would as well.

    Out here we depend on Snow melt.
    The Columbia River is mostly snow melt as well, we depend on that for electricity.

    No Glaciers = ”No Snow to melt in the summer”.

    Well the snow would instead fall as rain in winter, you then dam the river to store the water until the summer to cover the dry season and produce some electricity. But the Glaciers not melting so why worry,

  130. “Mayank Mathur (05:42:19) :
    [...]
    I have myself worked with TERI before a couple of times and am very much convinced of their research. ”

    Ah great, somebody who knows them. Mr. Mathur, i am concerned as a European taxpayer that the 10 Mill. Euro we gave to TERI for further research into this terrible problem with the glaciers might go to waste, now that the media are all finding it hard to believe that there is a problem. Do you think that TERI will be able to deliver a more robust fabrication for our 10 Million Euros in the future or is the money lost? I mean it would be terrible if the EU HIGHNOON project comes back empty-handed, they must at least have some kind of believable scare scenario for their money.

  131. Here is the original IPCC AR4 report about the retreat of Hymalayan glaciers:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html

    The table shows how many m/year the glaciers retreat, one of them for instance 23 m/year!!! That means if its gone by 2035 this glacier must have had a total length of, wait, about 644 m in 2007.

    Now that’s what i call a cute little glacier. Mr. Mathur, are you really sure that the people of TERI don’t sleep under their desk the entire working week?

  132. Mayank Mathur (05:42:19) :

    Oh my, the best defence you can put up, is to damn the poor man, ( Pachauri ), with faint praise.
    While at the same time admitting to taking his Shilling, with friends like you who needs enemies?

  133. The glacier i was talking about is the Gangotri glacier.
    Gangotri Glacier
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search

    Goumukh, terminus of the Gangotri glacier (lower right in image, behind prayer flag). The Bhagirathi peaks rise in the background.
    GoumukhGangotri Glacier is located in Uttarkashi District, Uttarakhand, India in a region bordering China. This glacier, source of the Ganga, is one of the largest in the Himalayas with an estimated volume of over 27 cubic kilometers.[1] The glacier is about 30 kilometres long (19 miles) and 2 to 4 km (1 to 2 mi) wide.

  134. The original and arch environmentalist columnist Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph has just come out and called for Pachouri’s head in his latest blog on the subject, the third in three days. Is he at last actually reading the reactionary comments that he gets every time he produces an article, or is he more concerned at his own position in maintaining his overtly warmist and denialist position at the Telegraph?

    It has been a good week in the UK for newspaper revelations starting with the Times disclosure, followed by a front page headline with supporting editorial in the hard copy version of the Daily Express, numerous articles in the Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph electronic and paper versions, but the most devastating one following the original Times report must be The Mail’s article reporting Murari Lal’s admission that he knew the claim was false even before it went to press. That must be the most devastating confirmation of all that the IPCC is telling complete and utter lies in order to further it’s own agenda..

  135. I think the melting from 500.000 to 100.000 in case of not taking action did not refer to square but to dollars of grant.

  136. This type of behavior is not new. Maybe 15 years ago I attended an American Society of Civil Engineers symposium for Water Resources. The keynote speaker was a gentleman from the UN. During his presentation a number was presented for increasing worldwide water demand. Being a bunch of dumb a** engineers one of us asked where that number came from. The answer, delivered with a straight face was “we made it up.” The justification given was they wanted a number large enough to attract attention.

    Now don’t get me wrong, the lack of fresh water supplies is a serious issue, especially in Africa, but for heaven’s sake if you don’t have real numbers don’t make them up.

  137. When even I read about what is turning into a farce, I can’t help thinking of the DeLorean Sports Car story where the British government along with assorted stars of film and entertainment got roped into financing what turned out to be a total disaster and cost the British taxpayer approximately £80 million, small fry compared to what this ‘Man Made Global Warming Scam’ has, is and will cost us.

  138. Lord Monckton tells Aussi radio he has documents showing Mr. Pachauri under-declared financial compensation from his NGO. Monckton called it “criminal.”

    Oh my… It’s as if we’ve suddenly been teleported into a new reality that’s free to debunk AGW. Ain’t VR great?

  139. Colin Porter:

    but the most devastating one following the original Times report must be The Mail’s article reporting Murari Lal’s admission that he knew the claim was false even before it went to press. That must be the most devastating confirmation of all that the IPCC is telling complete and utter lies in order to further it’s own agenda.

    Alas, that’s not the case. He has only confessed to knowing it was not peer-reviewed, and that he included it in order to alarm the readership. He has specifically denied that he received Georg Kaser’s letter warning him that the 2035 figure was completely absurd. He couldn’t possibly make such an admission and have any sort of career left. Here’s an extract from that Daily Mail article:

    Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.

    Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. ‘He didn’t contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,’ he said.

  140. John Blake (14:18:29) :

    “… ensure that major long-term glacial cooling –averaging 102,000 years from the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary 1.8-million years ago– will have catastrophic demographic impacts when it inevitably comes.”

    John, did you ever consider that “they” were well aware that “an Ice Age cometh” and are intent on moving the European, US and Canadian industries and their wealth south, while leaving the people in the NH to face death? The timing is about right. Maurice Strong started this whole CAGW/Enviornmentalism craze at the first UN earth summit in 1972 at the same time Milankovitch’s ice age cycle was being confirmed by Shackleton’s work with marine cores. {see http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html}

    Maurice Strong is well connected to oil, the UN, the World Bank and the Rockefellers. Even Radio for Peace International figured out the guy is no Santa Claus.
    “Anyone searching “Maurice Strong” on the web encounters a very
    interesting array of entries. (To quote Lewis Carroll, the story
    becomes “Curious and curiouser”) If we can believe even 10% of the
    story of his ascent to power and influence, an astonishing tale of
    subterfuge emerges, consistent with his attack on RFPI. Beyond the fig
    leaf of NGO’s that he uses for cover, Strong’s real alliances are with
    the enemies of the UN, which they are busily “reforming…”

    http://www.w4uvh.net/dxldtd3g.html

    Do you really thing the wacko tree hugger – animal rights – back to nature craze that started in the seventies would have gone main stream without a LOT of money and influence behind it? What has been the result. Sky high oil prices because we can not drill for oil in our own backyard, the relocation of industry to India and other third world countries and lots of money funneled directly into the central banks.

    The Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve. http://www.bloggernews.net/17032

    There is also the CIA document on “global cooling” written in 1974.

    “Investigations indicate that interglacials periods never extend beyond 12500 years nor has the period ever been less than 10,000 years. The glacial periods may be characterized by large continental ice sheets…and came to an end approximately 10,000 years ago …Scientist are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate the northern regions such as Canada, the European part of the Soviet Union and major areas of Northern China, will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow. That this will occur within the next 2500 years they are quite positive; that it may occur sooner is open to speculation.” http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

    Given a report like that I can certainly see a plan for moving the necessary parts of “civilization” south without revealing why. Sort of put the Baxter lab goof with the flu in a different light does it not? Especially given the recent years of “cooling” and a quiet sun along with recent studies showing a change to an Ice age can happen in a decade. http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/02/27/8560781.html

    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046

Comments are closed.